www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1918id/my_sisterinlaw_actually_asked_if_gravy_could/

found it after teoberry pointed it out.

yeah nice job taking that from reddit buddy

She needs the Reverse-Condiment stone to make the gravy evolve.

this is called Reductio ad absurdum. She's saying that the concept of evolution is just as logically incoherent the concept of gravy turning into mashed potatoes.

except reducto ad absurdum is a fallacy

No. reductio ad absurdum is used to demonstrate fallacies. it's not a fallacy itself

"Reductio ad absurdum is only valid when it builds on assertions which are actually present in the argument it is deconstructing, and not when it misrepresents them as a straw man."

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

so do you admit that your last comment was wrong?

if you classify swiftykid's comment as reducto ad absurdum, then it is being used fallaciously, not legitimately

there's no process that allows evolution to occur, just like theres no process that allows gravy to turn into mashed potatoes

there are many processes that allow evolution to occur. saying that is a fallacy because the theory doesn't imply anything about something like gravy turning into mashed potatoes. it is an incorrect and fallacious use of reduct ad absurdum.

except it isnt

well there's no genetic mechanism that allows mutations to add information. without new genetic information, new phenotypes, genotypes, morphological features etc.. couldnt have emerged. there's a tendency for the genome to lose information, not gain it. look up genetic entropy, it's a valid argument against evolution.

*cough* Read a fucking biology book already. You still keep using that same broken, WRONG argument.

why don't you read 'Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome' by John C. Sanford. it's a biology book, written by a biologist.

I have read it actually, back in 2007. It didn't hold up then and it doesn't hold up as anything particularly "new" in the field of trying to disprove evolution. It's has the same base that many other of these types of works have and this was surprisingly something I bet that you had read.

>It implies that mutations cannot create new information, and that natural selection is not a sufficient decision maker when choosing dominant strengths to carry on.
>Mutations cannot be beneficial, or at the very least we have no viewed any.
>That evolution through natural selection is even remotely "random".

The first problem is easily solves when we realize, that we don't create "new" information. We utilize pre-existing ones in new ways. (I've already given the example of having a base gene set of 1,2,3,->0 and having a mutation that produces 3.1416 yes we will perceive it as "new information" because it is a completely different sequence with incredibly more viable options, but it isn't anything truly "new".)

The second one is realized to be untrue when we look at mutations in bacteria and virus'. Not only do the mutate in a beneficial way but they do so on such quick timelines we can view it in our lifetimes.

The third ones is again, pointless. Natural selection is one of the strongest forces in nature and as a result will provide an obviously non-random pathway of genetic flow, manipulation, shredding and conjunction, with mutations being a very beneficial occurance at one time or another.

I suggest you read "The blind watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. It covers these points much better than I could.

"It implies that mutations cannot create new information, and that natural selection is not a sufficient decision maker when choosing dominant strengths to carry on. "

I've already addressed the issue of the emergence of new genetic information. pre-existing info can only be utilized in specific ways, because DNA strands contain specific information. if the information is altered, it either becomes less useful or completely worthless. it never becomes more robust. and if you believe in abiogenesis then you have to accept that new information can be created, there's no way around it

"Mutations cannot be beneficial, or at the very least we have no viewed any."

I don't believe this, and neither does Dr. Sanford. mutations can be beneficial but this is extremely rare. 'beneficial' mutations can only help get rid of non-functional, or deleterious features, they can't add new features that benefit an organism.

"That evolution through natural selection is even remotely "random". "

It may not be random, but it's certainly not capable of creating new morphological features or new genotypes. it can only 'select' pre-existing stuff.

a geneticist, more specifically

Was she being serious?

He wouldn't know, he stole the whole thing from r/atheism.

That did not answer my question...

I thought that implied that yes she was serious. Ill say it again.

Yes she was serious

Call social services.

And sorry, i did not understand what you were implying, for i am a devote Christian and i understand evolution. I did not know being a christian meant you did not understand such sciences.

Shes not a regular christian. Shes a devout fundie

Fundie?

fundamentalist